Effective Compliance Exemption (Art. 31 bis 2 CP)
Judicial accreditation of an effective compliance program to obtain criminal liability exemption for the legal entity.
Last updated:
The effective compliance exemption (Art. 31 bis 2 CP) is the only way for the legal entity to completely avoid criminal conviction when an offense has been committed within it. Having a document called "Compliance Manual" is not enough: the Supreme Court, in STS 154/2016 and later rulings, has consolidated that only materially effective and prior compliance excludes the company's culpability.
Cumulative Requirements of Art. 31 bis 2 CP
The exemption requires proving the four requirements simultaneously:
- Prior program: Adopted and executed before the commission of the offense, not afterwards.
- Autonomous body: Compliance Officer or Compliance Committee with autonomous powers of initiative and control. Its independence is scrutinized by the court.
- Fraudulent circumvention: The individual author circumvented the program fraudulently and deliberately. If the offense was possible due to defects of the program itself, there is no exemption.
- Absence of supervisory omission: The control body exercised its functions in a real and sufficient manner, not merely formally.
Autonomous Compliance Officer with Resources
The court does not accept a figurehead. The Compliance Officer (or committee) must enjoy genuine autonomous powers of initiative and control, backed by an own budget, sufficient staff and a direct reporting line to the board —not to the very executive whose area is being controlled. Real independence is proven with hard evidence: committee minutes, prior cases in which the program was actually applied, and a documented capacity to investigate and escalate. Without resources, autonomy is fictitious and the exemption fails, because a control body that cannot act is indistinguishable from no control at all.
Fraudulent Circumvention of the Program
This is the requirement most often litigated. The exemption presupposes that the material author deliberately and covertly circumvented a working program —concealing information, falsifying documents or bypassing established controls— rather than simply taking advantage of the program's own gaps. The distinction is decisive: if the offence was possible because the model had holes, the company shares the blame and there is no exemption; if the author had to defeat real, functioning controls to commit it, the program proves its effectiveness. Our defence reconstructs, document by document, exactly how the controls were evaded.
Post-Event Forensic Audit
When the imputation is notified, the criminal law firm must immediately activate a forensic audit of the program: review of Compliance Committee minutes, training delivered, complaints received and processed, risk assessments, controls applied to the specific area where the act occurred. This audit results in a technical expert report filed in the proceedings as exonerating evidence. The quality of this report is usually decisive for the court to grant exemption or mitigation.
Evidence Strategy at Trial
Exemption is won with evidence, not assertions. The strategy combines a documentary snapshot of the program in force —captured with a certified date to prevent any allegation of after-the-fact manufacturing—, an expert report assessing it against recognised standards (UNE 19601, ISO 37301) and the testimony of the Compliance Officer on the program's day-to-day operation. Where the four requirements are fully met the result is the acquittal of the legal entity; where they are only partially met, the same evidence supports the highly qualified mitigation of Art. 31 quater CP, with a one- or two-degree reduction. Exemption of the company never exempts the individual material author.
Penalty Chart
| Type / Scenario | Criminal Penalty |
|---|---|
| Total exemption (Art. 31 bis 2 CP) | Acquittal of the legal entity. Does not exempt the individual material author. |
| Highly qualified mitigation (Art. 31 quater CP) | 1 or 2 degrees of penalty reduction. Possibility of symbolic fine and avoidance of interdictory penalty. |
| Without compliance or cooperation | Full penalty: proportional fine, dissolution, suspension, judicial intervention and disqualification for public contracts. |
* Penalties shown are indicative. The actual penalty depends on case circumstances, applicable mitigating and aggravating factors.
Our Defense Strategy
Documentary Snapshot of the Program
Immediate certified-date capture of all compliance documentation in force at the time of the act.
UNE-ISO 37301 Expert Report
File a technical expert report evaluating the program against internationally recognized standards (UNE 19601, ISO 37301).
Defense Through Proven Circumvention
Documentarily reconstruct how the material author bypassed existing controls, evidencing the fraudulent nature of the act.
Economic Criminal Law in Spain: Tax Fraud, Money Laundering and Corporate Crimes
Economic criminal law encompasses the most severe financial penalties in the Spanish Criminal Code. Tax fraud over €120,000 (Art. 305 CP), money laundering (Art. 301 CP), and corporate crimes (Art. 290-297 CP) are complex offenses where defense requires a combination of criminal law expertise and deep accounting/financial knowledge.
Penalty Comparison: Economic Offenses
| Offense | Threshold | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Fraud (Art. 305) | >€120,000 | 1 – 5 years + fine x6 |
| Aggravated Tax Fraud | >€600,000 | 2 – 6 years |
| Money Laundering (Art. 301) | Any amount | 6 months – 6 years |
| Aggravated Laundering | Organized/financial system | Up to 9 years |
| Corporate Crime (Art. 290) | Balance sheet falsification | 1 – 3 years |
| Punishable Insolvency (Art. 259) | Fraudulent bankruptcy | 1 – 4 years |
Key Defense Strategies
Tax Regularization Defense (Art. 305.4 CP)
Pay the full tax debt before charges are formally filed and the crime is extinguished. This is the most powerful complete defense in tax fraud cases.
Challenge the €120K Threshold
The tax authority's calculation method is often contestable. Independent forensic accounting can challenge the assessed figure below the criminal threshold.
Money Laundering 'Self-laundering' Issues
Spanish courts have debated whether the primary offender can also be convicted of laundering their own proceeds. Challenge the double jeopardy implications.
Corporate Crime: Harm to Company vs. Shareholders
Art. 295 corporate crimes require actual financial harm to the company or its members. Demonstrate that any loss was speculative or absent.
Why Choose Us?
Need a criminal defense lawyer for this type of offense? Here's how we work:
Do you need specialised legal assistance?
The judicial system is complex. We have the criminal-law specialisation and technical resources required to take on the defence.